Jim Bell's comments, inline:
On Friday, November 1, 2019, 12:45:10 PM PDT, grarpamp <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 11/1/19, jim bell <[email protected]> wrote:
> A few years ago, I heard of a new version of the "Grand Theft Auto" program,
> maybe it was 'version 5', that was going to have an "assassination contract"
> feature built in. I didn't, and don't, know anything else
> But it seemed to me that video games, especially modern ones, tend to lend
> themselves to immerse players in a modern, semi-realistic environment. If
> we want to learn as much as possible about the behavior of people with
> access to "assassination contract" scenarios, I assume it should occur in
> such games. What could have been learned, I never checked out.
>There are MMORPGs, Second Life, many other sim platforms
AP could be introduced on. Both in form of the raw text, such
as added to the virtual world libraries, posted on virtual lightpoles,
etc. And as a functional implementation, whether in a virtual
market or embodied into a players character.
>Such platforms being centralized, the implementation
would likely be reported and instantly shutdown.
I would think that sociologists and philosophers would be interested to know,
at least theoretically, how an AP-type system would function, in a harmless
environment like a game simulation program.
"The raw text of AP might survive a bit longer.
I'd like to relate a story. One time, maybe it was 1998 or 2000, I was
released from prison, and I saw a copy of what purported to be my AP essay,
somewhere on the Internet. But it was VERY different! By different, I mean
very large numbers of spelling errors, punctuation errors, and other blatant
defects. Now, I've long prided myself on being very precise and good at
checking my work: There are VERY few errors in the (correct) archive of AP on
John Young's Cryptome system. They exist, I think most are actually my errors,
but are very few. (I didn't use a word-processor when I wrote AP, just a lot
of care.) Most are not spelling errors, or punctuation errors, but they are
broken sentences that somehow slipped by.
One exception was the seemiing substitution of "evolutionary" for the
obviously-correct "revolutionary" at the beginning of Part 2. I couldn't
possibly have MEANT "evolutionary"! Particularly in that obvious context.
And I didn't. Where that error came from, I have no idea. I don't doubt
that it's NOT John Young's fault, and I haven't ever asked him to change
anything about that version of AP, either. It obviously came to him in a state
of error. How did that initial error occur? Its now a historic document,
and editing it now would be...wrong.
But that doesn't mean that I haven't been intensely curious, for many years,
where that "evolutionary" came from. It would have appeared on the CP list,
initially, presumably sometime in July 1995, which is another reason I want to
see the initial appearance of Part 2. I hope, I virtually pray, that I DIDN'T
screw it up and type "evolutionary" instead of "revolutionary". It simply
doesn't make sense to say it that way.
I once sent a 5-page letter to journalist Andy Greenberg of Forbes,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/11/18/meet-the-assassination-market-creator-whos-crowdfunding-murder-with-bitcoins/#51d2df2c3d9b
which I had typed on a prison typewriter (with a correcting ribbon, but no
automatic spell-check at all). Later, Greenberg wrote a book, as I recall,
where he relates receiving my letter, describing it as being "virtually without
errors". As if that was supposed to be shocking. I was disgusted.
Having said that, I wondered where that hugely-defective version purporting to
be AP came from? And more importantly, I thought, WHO generated it, and WHY?
I concluded that somebody was crudely trying to discredit me.
The errors that were in the 'faked' AP did not appear to be those that would be
generated by OCR'ing a paper-copy of AP, for instance. (Such would have been
obvious, to anyone familiar with using OCR programs on printed text.) And
even during that era, the vast majority of document-writing would have been
done on word-processors with spelling checkers that would be automatically
enabled, by default. And most people would use them. (I've always used
spelling checkers, when I've used them, as a mere typo-detector.) So even a
bad-typist wouldn't have generate that faked document, unless he had been
deliberately doing so.
>The main issue with such proposal as AP,
as you noted, is getting exposure needed to
run it through the critique and development cycles.
At this point, I think the discovery of the fraud of tampering with the CP
archive could be further, additional proof of the government's malicious
intent, I don't doubt that there could be some innocent data-loss, but based
on what we now see, that virtually cannot be all of it.
>For that you have to keep reposting AP
everywhere... literally jamming it into peoples
streams randomly throughout social media,
news releases, journals, etc until a large
enough mass starts to pick it up and work
with it in their brains.
>Same as suggesting there is any truth out there
besides the fake two party duopolies, etc...
such as Libertarian Voluntary Anarchist models.
Regardless of how valid the latter may in fact be,
they are immediately dismissed because they
are so far outside the everyday exposure and
programmed computation modes of their brains.
>To counter that programming you have to
either get lucky with a starburst logic bomb,
or invest much traditional school time equivalent
in reprogramming them.
>For example... the public conferences and interviews
AP has done recently have had more public exposure
effects towards that than all posts here to date.
